Update Item

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-obvious partial-update semantics ('omitted fields are left unchanged'), which is real behavioral value. However, it says nothing about side effects like notifications/webhook triggers, permission requirements, or whether updates are reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the key partial-update constraint is front-loaded right after the purpose. Nothing needs trimming and nothing important is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core update semantics but omits side effects, auth/permission expectations, and error behavior (e.g., what happens if item_id is invalid). Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (item_id, fields, silent) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's only addition is the cross-reference that fields use the same format as podio_create_item, which is helpful but marginal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates field values on an existing Podio item') and scopes it to existing records, which separates it from podio_create_item. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with other item-mutating siblings such as podio_delete_item, but the intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'existing' item versus the create path, and it cross-references podio_create_item for field formatting. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (item must exist, app permissions), and no routing among the other item tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.